Comments on: Some Thoughts on the Paul Minor oral argument http://nmisscommentor.com/law/some-thoughts-on-the-paul-minor-oral-argument/ A blog from the hills in North Mississippi Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:11:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: RFK Jr. defends Paul Minor http://nmisscommentor.com/law/some-thoughts-on-the-paul-minor-oral-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-1155 RFK Jr. defends Paul Minor Wed, 08 Apr 2009 05:16:34 +0000 http://nmisscommentor.com/?p=659#comment-1155 [...] Tom Freeland analyzes the legal issues in the Minor oral argument, and follows up. P.P.S. Freeland’s reaction to the RFK Jr. work is [...] [...] Tom Freeland analyzes the legal issues in the Minor oral argument, and follows up. P.P.S. Freeland’s reaction to the RFK Jr. work is [...]

]]> By: Wrong Venue http://nmisscommentor.com/law/some-thoughts-on-the-paul-minor-oral-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-1111 Wrong Venue Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:38:55 +0000 http://nmisscommentor.com/?p=659#comment-1111 There's a new blog today on Huffington Post by RFK Jr. and Brendan DeMelle that says Minor's attorneys have filed a motion for his release pending the decision of the 5th Circuit. Check it out at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-brendan-demelle/paul-minors-attorneys-fil_b_184013.html There’s a new blog today on Huffington Post by RFK Jr. and Brendan DeMelle that says Minor’s attorneys have filed a motion for his release pending the decision of the 5th Circuit. Check it out at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-brendan-demelle/paul-minors-attorneys-fil_b_184013.html

]]> By: Wrong Venue http://nmisscommentor.com/law/some-thoughts-on-the-paul-minor-oral-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-1110 Wrong Venue Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:37:07 +0000 http://nmisscommentor.com/?p=659#comment-1110 The points raised in some of the comments seem to hit the nail on the head... several of you question the ethics of Minor's actions. Well aren't those ethics complaints usually dealt with by the state bar? Not by the FBI and the DOJ...unless of course there were political motivations behind the scenes... Paul Minor was the largest donor to Democratic candidates in Mississippi...Karl Rove wanted to cut such figures off at the knees, and his reputation for using indictments fished out of thin air to wipe out political competitors is well documented. Google the new movie “Project Save Justice,” directed by John McTiernan ("Die Hard," "The Hunt for Red October," "Predator" and other mega Hollywood hits) which details how the Bush DOJ prosecuted Democrats at a far greater rate than Republicans. McTiernan was inspired to make the film after hearing about the study by University of Missouri professors Donald Shields and John Cragan which found that eighty percent of the Bush DOJ’s political investigations targeted Democrats - 5.6 Democrats for every Republican investigated by U.S. attorneys for political misconduct. (McTiernan was actually indicted himself! Go figure... start asking questions and that's what happens under Bush rule) Anyway, Paul Minor probably should've been asked to account for his actions by the state bar. But locking him up for 11 years for actions that were perfectly legal under state law at the time - never mind if they were 100% ethical, the Republicans were doing the exact same thing - that's just not right. He deserves bail now, and probably a new trial, or new sentencing based on Gratuity laws (less than quid pro quo). Enough is enough. The points raised in some of the comments seem to hit the nail on the head… several of you question the ethics of Minor’s actions. Well aren’t those ethics complaints usually dealt with by the state bar? Not by the FBI and the DOJ…unless of course there were political motivations behind the scenes… Paul Minor was the largest donor to Democratic candidates in Mississippi…Karl Rove wanted to cut such figures off at the knees, and his reputation for using indictments fished out of thin air to wipe out political competitors is well documented. Google the new movie “Project Save Justice,” directed by John McTiernan (“Die Hard,” “The Hunt for Red October,” “Predator” and other mega Hollywood hits) which details how the Bush DOJ prosecuted Democrats at a far greater rate than Republicans. McTiernan was inspired to make the film after hearing about the study by University of Missouri professors Donald Shields and John Cragan which found that eighty percent of the Bush DOJ’s political investigations targeted Democrats – 5.6 Democrats for every Republican investigated by U.S. attorneys for political misconduct. (McTiernan was actually indicted himself! Go figure… start asking questions and that’s what happens under Bush rule)

Anyway, Paul Minor probably should’ve been asked to account for his actions by the state bar. But locking him up for 11 years for actions that were perfectly legal under state law at the time – never mind if they were 100% ethical, the Republicans were doing the exact same thing – that’s just not right. He deserves bail now, and probably a new trial, or new sentencing based on Gratuity laws (less than quid pro quo). Enough is enough.

]]> By: Mikey's Mom http://nmisscommentor.com/law/some-thoughts-on-the-paul-minor-oral-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-950 Mikey's Mom Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:08:25 +0000 http://nmisscommentor.com/?p=659#comment-950 Don Corleone gave money to the Catholic Church, so what? Don Corleone gave money to the Catholic Church, so what?

]]> By: It'sAboutTime http://nmisscommentor.com/law/some-thoughts-on-the-paul-minor-oral-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-930 It'sAboutTime Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:53:48 +0000 http://nmisscommentor.com/?p=659#comment-930 It's disturbing that you can rot in jail for 31 months and still not have your appeal ruled on long before. Whether he's guilty of the technical crime charged, I, as a lawyer, would assume he's guilty of something. It’s disturbing that you can rot in jail for 31 months and still not have your appeal ruled on long before.
Whether he’s guilty of the technical crime charged, I, as a lawyer, would assume he’s guilty of something.

]]> By: NMC http://nmisscommentor.com/law/some-thoughts-on-the-paul-minor-oral-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-917 NMC Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:20:21 +0000 http://nmisscommentor.com/?p=659#comment-917 I've had a clarification about what Justice Diaz may have been thinking about Paul Minor and Legal Services: That Paul Minor had a role in Legal Services opening a Biloxi office, and then, when funding was being pulled (which presented a serious crisis for Legal Services everywhere and caused a gross cutback in services), he funded its continued operation in Biloxi. A good thing to have done. I’ve had a clarification about what Justice Diaz may have been thinking about Paul Minor and Legal Services: That Paul Minor had a role in Legal Services opening a Biloxi office, and then, when funding was being pulled (which presented a serious crisis for Legal Services everywhere and caused a gross cutback in services), he funded its continued operation in Biloxi. A good thing to have done.

]]> By: NMC http://nmisscommentor.com/law/some-thoughts-on-the-paul-minor-oral-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-909 NMC Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:41:07 +0000 http://nmisscommentor.com/?p=659#comment-909 I started listening to Diaz in the middle. He's interesting. One odd thing, though: "Paul Minor singlehandedly started the funding of legal services that got them off the ground." He then said it was statewide.nb Huh?? Legal services began as a Great Society program when Paul Minor wasn't out of law school. I started listening to Diaz in the middle. He’s interesting. One odd thing, though: “Paul Minor singlehandedly started the funding of legal services that got them off the ground.” He then said it was statewide.nb

Huh?? Legal services began as a Great Society program when Paul Minor wasn’t out of law school.

]]> By: sailor http://nmisscommentor.com/law/some-thoughts-on-the-paul-minor-oral-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-905 sailor Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:59:56 +0000 http://nmisscommentor.com/?p=659#comment-905 FYI: Oliver Diaz to discuss his eyewitness account of Austin arguments today live on "It's a New Day" 9:30 ish. Jax area listeners can tune in to 90.1FM, coast listeners 94.5FM, or listen via web itisanewday.com. FYI: Oliver Diaz to discuss his eyewitness account of Austin arguments today live on “It’s a New Day” 9:30 ish. Jax area listeners can tune in to 90.1FM, coast listeners 94.5FM, or listen via web itisanewday.com.

]]> By: NMC http://nmisscommentor.com/law/some-thoughts-on-the-paul-minor-oral-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-904 NMC Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:14:37 +0000 http://nmisscommentor.com/?p=659#comment-904 BTW, the oral argument transcript also starts with this disclaimer, which I've cut and pasted verbatim, as I did the quotes in my post: "This unedited rough draft of the proceedings is not certified. The rough draft transcript may not be cited or used in any way or at any time to rebut or contradict the certified transcription of proceedings. There will be discrepancies in this form and the final form, because this has not been proofread, corrected, finalized, indexed, bound, or certified. (Note: Approximately the first five mintues of the proceedings are missing from the transcript.)" BTW, the oral argument transcript also starts with this disclaimer, which I’ve cut and pasted verbatim, as I did the quotes in my post:

“This unedited rough draft of the proceedings is not certified. The rough draft transcript may not be cited or used in any way or at any time to rebut or contradict the certified transcription of proceedings. There will be discrepancies in this form and the final form, because this has not been proofread, corrected, finalized, indexed, bound, or certified.
(Note: Approximately the first five mintues of the proceedings are missing from the transcript.)”

]]> By: NMC http://nmisscommentor.com/law/some-thoughts-on-the-paul-minor-oral-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-902 NMC Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:08:28 +0000 http://nmisscommentor.com/?p=659#comment-902 The transcript assumes a lot of knowledge about the briefs, the caselaw, and the facts in the case-- it was a panel already in the middle of thinking through the case to a great extent. I pulled what I put on the post straight from it. I'll reread the post to check, and consider adding more context to make it clearer. Somewhere in Lowell's argument he notes that Minor has already served 31 months, I think (it's in the part before the transcript). Why it took so long to get up there I don't really know, but I vaguely remember controversy about that. The case I just argued went to judgment in January of 2008. The transcript assumes a lot of knowledge about the briefs, the caselaw, and the facts in the case– it was a panel already in the middle of thinking through the case to a great extent. I pulled what I put on the post straight from it. I’ll reread the post to check, and consider adding more context to make it clearer.

Somewhere in Lowell’s argument he notes that Minor has already served 31 months, I think (it’s in the part before the transcript). Why it took so long to get up there I don’t really know, but I vaguely remember controversy about that. The case I just argued went to judgment in January of 2008.

]]>